From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:35:56 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P vs. FUSE In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070810114225.GF18939@nibiru.local> <2d66a95ea087868174cfdc519a48a2d7@9netics.com> <20070810123336.GG18939@nibiru.local> <13426df10708100851i7a385abbx2aa8e83ec32ff74b@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10708101116i62ef09f4h6e27f97cbb952934@mail.gmail.com> Cc: V9FS Developers Topicbox-Message-UUID: a4c3ec16-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 8/10/07, Latchesar Ionkov wrote: > It is not only matter to forward-port it, but also get it accepted > into the kernel. I have to check what is the other union mount that > Eric mentioned. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/30/193 On a somewhat related topic, we'll probably want to enable some sort of simple copy-on-write mode for paravirtualized file-system 9p servers -- it strikes me that it might be better done in a single server (cow semantics+whiteout along with UNIX file gateway service). -eric